News

'Bid for city status won't swallow up Woodley & Earley'

February 08, 2010

Reading's council leader has pledged its bid for city status would not impact on Wokingham’s borough boundaries.

Wokingham borough councillors raised concerns that if Reading is successful in its newest bid to become a city, it could swallow up places such as Woodley and Earley.

An idea they opposed, with Tory councillor Keith Baker exclaiming to his Lib Dem counterpart Cllr Prue Bray: “I’m sure you and I will be the first to man the barricades!”

Reading Borough Council leader Cllr Jo Lovelock told getwokingham: “I have been very clear with everybody that it’s not about our boundaries.

“It’s very much about recognising what Reading has become because we are the historic county town of Berkshire.

“It’s very much about celebrating what Reading is about and its contribution to the economy.

“Making a successful bid has to be about partnership rather than some futile discussion about boundaries.”

Reading has decided to once again apply for city status despite two previous unsuccessful bids.

It has proposed that in the Olympic Year and the Queen’s Jubilee Year, 2012, it will attempt to be reclassified as a city.

The last attempt, for the Millennium, ended in Brighton and Preston being named cities while Reading remained a town.

When Berkshire was split into unitary authorities in 1997, the issue over whether Woodley and Earley could become part of Greater Reading was raised but never seriously pursued.

Wokingham councillors said they had concerns the closer working environment generated by the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) proposals could encourage Reading Borough Council to try to swallow up parts of Wokingham into its suburbs.

Cllr Bray, leader of the Lib Dems, said: “Reading will be eyeing up Woodley and Earley.

“The TIF process means a good deal of collaboration in cross-border schemes and I don’t want the TIF to be a Trojan horse to try to take over Woodley and Earley.”

Leader of Earley Town Council Cllr Chris Edmunds, speaking in his last address to the council before his unexpected death at the end of last month, said: “If you look at the Reading urban area, there is Shinfield, Hawkedown, South Lake, Loddon, Bulmershe & Whitegates, Hillside and Maiden Erlegh among others which are part of Wokingham – a large part of our residents live in the Reading urban area.

“I can assure Prue from the last time they looked at swallowing up parts of Wokingham borough that I don’t recall at the time it was closely linked to city status.

“The best way to be involved with decisions about the TIF is to be involved from within.”

Reading will be making its case on the grounds of it being the “capital of Thames Valley” and the 10th largest economy in the country, Cllr Lovelock said.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (15)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 15 of 15

Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

roll on next year and im outta here

michmet, reading (unfortunately)
10/02/2010 at 16:18

Cllr Lovelock - please carry on misleading the public - 10th largest economy! - pa. Reading's ills would be cured once Councillors start to come to terms with the reality that is this town. Reading is a transport interchange and that is its main business to facilitate movement between economically sound and prosperous areas of the country like Wokingham etc. It is not a city and does not have a sound economic model other than to let property developers ride rough shot over the area. What makes you think that we are the Capital of anything - a railway station or buses?

Here is a new idea for Councillors - why do you not prepare a document which is accessible to the public detailing why this town should be called a city, publish it and then let us vote on your vision? The Conservatives can do the same as they too are in favour. I, for one, would like to hear your full views so that they can be forensically examined for substance - after all this Council is the model for democracy; you will have us believe. It should not be that much of a challenge – your recommendations are founded on substance and not spin, are they not?

Damocles, Reading
10/02/2010 at 10:00

michmet if you don't like it go elsewhere. I don't think you will be missed.

Not sure why I bother
9/02/2010 at 07:14

Why don't woodley/early start their own state ... to good for wokingham not good enough for reading we don't want you..goodbye.

Richard Richard
8/02/2010 at 17:05

I really don't get how anyone living in Woodley and Earley, currently benefiting from the mostly excellent WBC, would possibly seek to switch to the clowns in Reading.

I've lived under both councils and trust me, we're better off where we are thanks.

Millicent Reeves, Twyford
8/02/2010 at 14:46

'Bid for city status won't swallow up Woodley & Earley'

That's the headline - but who said it?

Some of those quoted in the article may have said it as they will fight so that it does not happen. Jo Lovelock says the city bid is not about the boundaries, but nothing in the article quotes her as saying they will not change as a consequence if the bid is successful, nor that she would not like it to be so.

When the councils finish bickering on a mere possibility - something seemingly unplanned - then perhaps a fair review of what the people living in these areas want can be carried out. Their opinions matter somewhat more than a few of the more hopeless councillors claiming ownership and control like they actually matter much in the long run.

For some Wokingham councillors to helpfully re-emphasise their opposition to collaboration that may benefit the populace sums up their lack of intelligence and effort quite nicely though. Just because it doesn’t suit them personally doesn’t make something wrong, and their response suggests it would actually be the right thing to do if anything.

Nowtas, Reading West
8/02/2010 at 13:46

Make Wokingham a city and swallow Reading

Nimrod Maximus
8/02/2010 at 13:25

Naturally these Councilors would say anything to preserve their power base. We need a neutral body, unpressured by the politicians to propose a sensible solution such as to give Reading its suburbs including Earley, Woodley, Shinfield and Calcot and to merge Wokingham (town) and the rural villages with Bracknell Forest. Simple.

Earley Dawes
8/02/2010 at 13:25

Mostly agree michmet - but you don't actually need a cathedral nowadays to become a city. You can now get it just on population.

The Realist
8/02/2010 at 13:24

reading is NOT A CITY, and with luck (ie NOT having a cathederal built) NEVER will be. there are far too many wannabees, and psuedo "geezers" and other idiots in this pathetic little market town, and NO Police cover of any substance.

so unless the church build you one, get knotted carrot crunchers!

michmet, reading (unfortunately)
8/02/2010 at 13:08

Wokingham will never relinquish control of W&E. They make too much money out of their council tax payers.

Big P, Reading
8/02/2010 at 12:04

Go for Wokingham at the same time?

Nimrod Maximus
8/02/2010 at 11:43

Reading should expand it's borders. It's ridiculous that some parts of "Greater Reading" are run by other authorities who have different school admission policies, different transport policies and so on. Unify it properly.

DM
8/02/2010 at 11:39

Have to agree with Gill G. Reading's current boundaries are irrational.

Mountain Cat, Tilehurst
8/02/2010 at 11:38

I wish Reading would swallow-up Woodley and Earley (and the rest of Tilehurst). I never set foot in Wokingham but have to pay my council tax to them. They haven't the slightest interest in where I live, which is just inside their boundary in Earley. As far as I'm concerned I live in Reading and use Reading services, but have no say in their provision. These out-dated boundaries are ridiculous, and the city-status bid would be the ideal time to redraw them and make Reading a more sensible and more easily administered area.